I always wonder myself, why people keep AOL. But then I look at a number of my customers who still use it.... In one case, it's a gradeschool teacher who is barely computer-literate, but expected to have her own email address in this day and age. She does the vast majority of her emailing on her Treo phone that a Sprint rep. informed her about and showed her how to use - and AOL actually is supported in the "Versamail" application included with the phone. Her worst nightmare would be having to switch to something new, and explain to everyone she knows what her new email address is. Her laptop at home has its start page set to AOL, and she knows just enough to sign in on that page and get to her stuff, double-click to view photos and videos that were too big to get on her phone, and so forth.
In another case, it's an older, retired couple. AOL came with their nearly 10-year old Compaq Presario PC that they still use with Windows '98SE. That's what they started with, and so they still use it. $15 a month or whatever is a small price to pay to stick with something familiar and to keep their same email address. (They're still using dial-up too. Just can't imagine a need to pay for anything faster....)
But ultimately, yeah - AOL is living on their (now dwindling) past success. Their customer-base is, by and large, the long-time customers who resist change and are scared of learning something new.
Well... a long time ago, when I first got my hands on a Sinclair 1000 personal computer with 2K of RAM and started learning about computers and programming, I also got the "itch" to learn more about HAM radio. I can defiinitely see where the potential "crossover" is with the two interests/hobbies.
The reason *I* didn't pursue HAM radio and did pursue computers, BBSing, and later the Internet, is because I didn't need a government-issued license to use my computer!
To this day, it still keeps me away from doing anything with amateur radio. I feel like HAMs, in general, like preserving sort of an "elite" status through FCC licensing. There's something that, to me, just feels ridiculous about having to announce a long callsign with each radio communication, and having to take and pass exams before I can transmit on a radio that I paid hundreds of dollars for already.
Does it keep the overall "quality" of users higher than they'd be without it? Yes... no doubt. But I *still* like the Internet better without it imposing similar restrictions on its usage - despite the spammers and garbage web site content!
Originial poster is absolutely right! Thankfully, there is still a pretty strong/vocal minority that doesn't agree. But I was reminded of the trend just last week while listening to the radio. One of our city's most popular morning radio shows featured the DJ's bragging on the air about their lack of ability to use or understand computers. (I think it got started because the station was running an iTunes-related promotion, and these guys started in on the "What the heck IS iTunes anyway?" thing.)
They started asking people to call in if they were "as lost as they are" with computers, and took call after call from people who were proud to announce that they couldn't figure out a thing on their work or home PC.
I guess they thought this was entertaining... but to me, it just sounded pathetic. I mean, honestly, if you work in the mass media industry, shouldn't you be at least *comfortable* around computers? They've only been relying on them as digital cart machines and so forth for YEARS now....
The sudden motion the sensors were originally designed to sense was the first stage of it starting to fall off of a desk or table, onto the floor. If it took very much shock energy to trip the sensor, it would be totally useless - since it would basically be asking the hard drive to shut down after the computer already hit the floor.
Therefore, the sensors are very sensitive - registering a response to levels of shock well below what would actually harm a spinning laptop hard drive. (If your drive was fragile enough to crash because of someone lightly tapping on the top of the notebook's case, or giving a light tap to the side of the unit to switch virtual screens, it would also die whenever someone tried to move around to get moer comfortable with their laptop in their lap, or adjiust the position of the lid, or.... (you get the idea).
This stuff seems perfectly harmless to me, as long as users exercise some common sense. (Obviously - it was NEVER a good idea to whack your computer hard on the side or top!)
Bah... This kid's happy because he was able to buy himself a pet hamster with his coaching job. Do you think those sell for upwards of $400? I think the truth is, they might be billing at rates of $25/hr. or even $65/hr. but they've only found clients willing to pay for a couple hours of time, total.
As a parent myself, I would have no problem with my kid doing something like this. Charging an hourly fee for coaching someone teaches quite a few useful skills. They learn that they have to keep a customer happy/satisfied in order to retain their business. They practice their skills in customer relations. It encourages them to try to earn money doing something they enjoy. All good things.
As for video games being "only a passtime", that depends. Sports are just a passtime for most people, yet those who are best at playing them can earn millions a year making a career out of them. If I had a kid who thought he/she was really good enough at video games to try making money from it, I sure wouldn't discourage them! They'll either "beat the odds" and succeed, or more likely, tire of it after a while or redirect their interest in a more financially useful way. (Maybe they'll get interested in software development and write games for a living?)
Without hearing your particular system, I can't really say for sure - but I've owned 2 G5 dual 2.0Ghz towers and both have exhibited what I'd call a "slight electrical whine", which varies by CPU load.
This has been discussed all over the Mac forums in the past, and for many people, doing such things as changing the speed settings from "Automatic" to the full performance mode elimiated much of it.
I don't find the noise "annoying" at all, really. I considered it a perfectly acceptable noise that my system was just going to make from time to time. If the machine had louder cooling fans in it (like most PCs I've used), I suspect it would drown the whining noise out completely.
I believe Apple also did several revisions of the G5's power supply, because early revisions were more prone to causing the system to make the whining or "chirping" noise.
The "Genius bar" at Apple stores tends to be staffed by a lot of people who *like* Macs and Apple products, but don't necessarily have loads of technical knowledge about them. It's "hit or miss", in my experience. I think it's largely because they don't pay enough for what they really want/need in terms of quality of employees. But hey - that's retail for you. (I remember here in St. Louis, MO when the quad G5 tower first came out, my friend went to the local Apple store to see one and nobody there was even aware it existed!)
Interesting concept, but I'm not quite sure that's the right way to deal with the problem. Despite a lot of "hype" and cyberpunk novels glorifying the Internet as somehow "more than the sum of its parts" - it really boils down to being a really big wide-area network.
The "value" of the Internet can shift from "incredibly useful" to "nothing but junk" or anyplace in between, and that has to do with the quality and amount of content people choose to hang off of the ends of the network.
I think sometimes, we get too caught up in treating the "Internet" as a single entity filled with information and shared by the whole world. In reality, it's just a "grid" that allows everyone's computer equipment to interconnect (or not, as they so desire).
Rather than making this network into a "soverign nation", I think what is best is letting nations make their own decisions as to the "good" and the "bad" of interconnecting their part of the "grid" with other countries. It would be (in my opinion) unfortunate if a country like China decided they simply weren't benefiting enough from allowing traffic to and from U.S. based systems - but it'd be their leaders' option to cut themselves off from us completely if they so desired.
Indeed, this may end up happening.... Certain nations decide to break off from the "global" Internet, and only connect with specific other countries. I think, if this does happen, it will only be temporary - as they learn how much they're missing through those policies.
I felt the same way. I really liked Fink (and even the FinkCommander GUI front-end for it), but it always feels like I'm getting "stale" software using it. I got to the point where I quit playing around with it for now.
I think the fact is, this sort of development in OS X is always going to be of "niche" interest only - since so many Mac users will never care about tinkering with open source software and the X environment.
Instead of multiple projects, I'd rather see everyone interested in this get behind Fink and help make one up-to-date, respectable system.
No offense taken. I appreciate the comments, actually. If I wasn't able to deal with "critics", it would have been foolish to post my financial situation in public on Slashdot.
Let me clarify a few things though.
First off, no, I don't have cable or satellite TV at all. I've been doing without for months now - after realizing how little value for my dollar I was getting with them. I don't have much time to watch movies or TV anyway. When I do, I tend to find free codes to rent a new release at a McDonalds RedBox and watch one of those.
I do have a cellphone, but recently switched providers to U.S. Cellular from Verizon, because I realized that most of my minutes during peak hours are used when people call me. By comparison, I make very few outgoing calls. U.S. Cellular's free incoming call plan makes much more sense.
I do have a 6mbit DSL high-speed Internet connection, but as far as I'm concerned, it's 110% justifiable. Sure, I don't literally *need* it, but not only is it a tax-deductible expense since I have my own on-site computer service business I do as my 2nd. job, but it's also something that saves me precious time when I find out I need a large file at the last minute. (EG. Customer wants you to go fix their all-in-one printer, and you find out they lost their driver CD. These things are often over 100MB in size to download.) My child likes playing the learning games found on sites like Nick Jr. too - and that's cheaper than buying the games at the store for her.
Large house in the suburbs? Nope! New car? Nope. I drive a 2002 I bought used after doing a lot of shopping around, and it's a pretty fuel-efficient 4 cyl. and top rated for reliability.
Also, to the person talking about cost of living and suggesting a studio apartment vs. a house, I'm just not quite "with you" that housing is a viable place to "cut corners" like that. If you have a house that's larger than you need, or in an upscale neighborhood - then sure. You can move to something more affordable. But where I live, I *might* cut my $600 a month house payment down to about $450 by renting instead of buying my house. In the process, I'd lose any ability to build equity and I'd trade off some of my privacy, plus likely lose some square footage. I'd certainly lose the fenced-in back yard my kid can play in right now.
Many financial advisors I've heard speak in the past said your home is the single best place you can put your money, in most cases. Unlike almost every other tangible asset you can purchase, a home is likely to actually appreciate in value over the time you own and use it.
I have to disagree, although I grant you it's true that *some* people are incredibly irresponsible when it comes to their finances. In the cases of most people I know (and even in my own case), we're in that majority of Americans who are expected to do more work for less pay - and yet, we're striving to scrape together some kind of lifestyle we aren't ashamed to have around our friends and family.
EG. I could theoretically "put away" more of each paycheck in investments, rather than spending all of it, BUT I'm just about out of corners I can cut. My current salary is thousands less per year than I was paid to do a job involving LESS responsibility, 6 or 7 years ago - and that's after a long stint of unemployment/self-employment and heavy job hunting. Meanwhile, gasoline costs roughly 3x as much as it did back then, and even little things like going out to lunch are about double the cost. (I remember around 1997 or 98, it was quite possible to buy lunch for under $4.00. I used to go to Subway and get a 6-inch cold cut trio sandwich with chips and a drink for about $3.90. To do the same today is around $6.00-$6.50 depending on the store and local taxes.) I get paid bi-weekly and the check I receive at the end of each month is completely wiped out by just my house payment, car payment, and my choice of one smaller bill such as electric, gas, or telephone. The other check is well over half gone just paying for my other utility bills and car insurance. That leaves me with maybe $300-400 for everything else, including groceries, gasoline, car repairs and maintenance, home repairs or improvement, and so on. And I don't even live in a good neighborhood or a "big house" by any means!
I have 2 credit cards, but one has only a $500 balance and the other a $250 balance. Even maxxing those out and paying their outrageous interest rates - that's not going to bury me financially. (And for the record, I have a 0 balance on the $500 limit card and try to keep it that way 90% of the time.)
It just bothers me to get "the lecture" from people about not saving for a "rainy day" -- when doing what they suggest would involve something like going without electricity for a month, or running out of food for my kid. There are a growing number of people out there just like me... working 2 jobs and struggling like mad to keep our heads above water without stooping to government assistance and subsidized housing - but to an outsider, we appear to be fairly "middle class".
I'll agree that MS hasn't given me any *huge* hassles getting products activated when I had to call in - but that doesn't make me any happier about it. It's basically an unnecessary extra step I have to go through that I shouldn't have to bother with.
I do a lot of on-site computer service, and I regularly run into situations where a PC is dead and a motherboard has to be swapped out. After that, XP always thinks it's being installed on a 2nd. machine, instead of the original one. That means I'm always stuck making that phone call and reading off the big, long key code to the voice recognition system of theirs, only to get put on hold to talk to an agent who asks for the first part of that key again and makes me answer the questions.
If you have an OEM license bundled with a PC, vs. a retail copy of XP, they ask additional questions too, such as "What brand and model of computer did this copy of Windows come with?"
Sometimes, I think the only reason they seem so generous in re-activating these licenses is because they've outsourced their call centers to other countries, and the people doing the phone support are trained in a real basic way. I doubt they even understand enough English to make their own determination of whether or not my requested use for the Windows activation is legal or not.
(EG. One time, I tried to explain that my Windows activation problem was due to experimenting with installing my copy inside Virtual PC, and I had since removed that - and just wanted to put it back on my original PC like it was supposed to be. That was met with the support person repeating the question over and over, "How many total computers have you installed Windows on?" They seemed to have no idea what I was talking about.....)
Yeah... I never realized they had just one person doing all of those logos! I guess I just assumed it was a tradition carried on by different folks in the design team. It's a nice touch, especially since their site is pretty basic and uncluttered. It allows the art to really stand out.
It all depends on what you're after, I think. Personally, I almost *never* seriously consider buying "bleeding edge" hardware - because doing so automatically means paying a big price premium, as an "early adopter" helping recoup R&D costs, plus a good chance of unreliability. How often are device drivers well-optimized for the "new, latest and greatest" thing? How many times does "bleeding edge" quickly turn into "first attempt at something that was totally redesigned before really catching on"?
The latest rumors circulating about the new Pro Macs all point to Apple including slots for 2 optical drives again, instead of just 1 like current G5 towers have. That would help a lot in terms of "expandability". Otherwise, I think all G5 towers have been very expandable. What limitations are you running into with them? Arguably, they should have included more hard drive bays - but for as little as $45 or so, you can buy 3rd. party solutions that let you add several more internal drives using custom brackets. They've been pretty generous with RAM slots, and I know *nobody* who actually filled all the PCI-X or PCI-e slots in one?? Bluetooth? Wireless? Both possible to order as options that don't take up any slots or ports. Optical audio output? Included.
Huh? I think *you* must be a bit naive if you think "middle management" is responsible for everything from developing packaging for products to sales to payroll and benefits!
You have accounting staff, a maintenance department, a human resources department, a sales department, and possibly a marketing or advertising department for such things.
The people being cut in this Intel move are going to basically be your "project managers", who do little but act as mouthpieces or "conduits" between a small group and another manager above them who expects/wants to deal with only 1 person when giving orders or requesting feedback on a particular project.
IMHO, that's really just a "luxury" for larger companies. If it's time to cut costs, that's the best place to start. Smaller businesses can't afford to do such things, so one manager is typically expected to listen to and work with a group him/herself, and consolidate their individual statements into one "summarized" version to give to the business owner(s) when needed.
I've started paying much more attention to these topics in recent years, since I have a kid of my own who is about to start preschool.
What I've observed here in St. Louis, Missouri, anyway, is that our public schools run the gamut from excellent to horrible, depending on where you happen to live. Our schools in the city itself are largely in the "poor to horrible" category. In the "inner hub" counties closest to the city, they're only 1 step better in most cases. As you move further west of the city, into the more affluent counties, the public schools generally improve.
Unfortunately, the kids at the highest risk of getting a substandard education are often the same ones with parents who simply can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids. So what you typically see are kids of well-to-do upper middle-class parents being homeschooled because their parents just believe they "know better" how to teach their kid(s) than the school districts do, or because they're a little overprotective.
My thinking is, by homeschooling, you're *already* denying your kid(s) a lot of opportunity to build social skills. If they're using a virtual school on the computer while they're at home, vs. only interacting with the same parent(s) they always interact with anyway, how much difference does that really make? What's important is that homeschoolers get their kids involved in extracurricular activities so they're getting to interact with their peers in other settings.
No... that could very well also be a "politically correct" way of saying, "I'm well aware that some of our management are worthless sponges, sucking up a paycheck while adding zero value to the company. I plan on kicking these people out as soon as I can, while looking at the rest of the bunch to see who else needs to stay, and who needs to go."
It's refreshing to see a bunch of middle management given the boot, rather than the much more common scenario of cutting jobs of the technical people "in the trenches".
I've always felt that especially in fields like engineering and computer support or application development, you can get by with very minimal management if you make it a point to try to hire people who are comfortable/capable working with little direction.
Most people I've known who were good in the area of computing and I.T. (not to mention engineering types) spent a lot of time teaching themselves and experimenting via trial and error. (If you got interested in computers back in the 1980's, there really were no classes to take or certification exams to pass. You *had* to pick up whatever book(s) were bundled with your computer, learn how to program it yourself, and master the thing.) These aren't people especially "compatible" with multiple layers of management and micro-management.
Sure.... but they also leave few real alternatives. So far, the most useful "boot from alternate OS to virus scan/clean" solutions are illegal, pirated boot CDs like "Hiren's" that make the rounds on the net.
You could shell out the ridiculous price of $400+ for a copy of AVAST's B.A.R.T. CD, I suppose - but then you're stuck with their inferior virus scanning/removal technology. I've generally fared better running the latest AVG on a compromised system's own OS than relying on AVAST to get it clean running from the stripped-down XP that boots from a B.A.R.T. CD.
Personally, I find it amazing that Symantec, of all people, hasn't re-used the "boot from virtual partition into PC-DOS" solution they've already integrated into Ghost Corporate as a way for their AV software to run full scans and cleans?
I was shocked to see Yahoo very recently releasing a new OS X beta verison of their IM client! Until about 2 weeks ago, all they had for Mac users was that horrible, 3 year old client full of bugs and growing incompatibility with their own network!
It makes me wonder if that's tied in to this whole MSN/Yahoo intercompatibility thing - because MSN *does* have a very nice, current Mac OS X client.
I can relate to the original poster to a large extent, although I occasionally feel like I've been bitten by the "new technology" bug and develop this fixation on buying a specific new piece of electronics or computer gear. But only very sporadically compared to when I was younger, and just longed for almost every new gadget that was announced.
My initial reaction was just like yours. It's called "maturity" or "growing up"! But I'm thinking about it right now, and realizing that's not a full answer (at least for me).
Part of it was simply that I had more free time and disposable income, coupled with wanting to have something "new and cool" to show off to friends. But I do think "burn out" plays a role too.
Especially with strictly "entertainment related" items (anything from new music to DVD movies to computer games), I'm starting to feel jaded. I think "Ehh... there's a lot of hype about this new release, but it sounds too much like something I've seen before. I'll skip it." I think I'm just getting old enough to start observing rehashes of many things I enjoyed when I was younger, and seeing how the generation younger than me never experienced the older or original versions before, so they're buying them up and enjoying them like they're brand new concepts.
Yes, I considered bringing the incident up in the interview, except I was aware that one of the interviewers knew me from years ago, and knew about my BBS. (In fact, I mentioned on my resume that coding and running my own BBS was among my interests outside of work.) I was under the impression that had he thought this could have been a problem, he would never have let me get past the first interview, or even the initial application I submitted online.
I couldn't really envision it being much of a "positive" to discuss the FBI raiding one's home and confiscating all of their computer equipment (apparently by mistake, due to receiving false information and tips). At best, it's an entertaining story that has no real bearing on one's ability to perform a job. At worst, it scares people and casts doubt on one's ability to be trusted with corporate information.
Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised they even dug deep enough to find this info. My personal web site didn't exactly have this story in bold type off the main page or anything. You had to go down several layers of menus to find it, buried under a whole list of info I wrote about various interests of mine. (If I were a recruiter, I don't think I would slog through applicants' personal web pages, reading about their pets, favorite cars, favorite bands and rock concerts attended in the past, and who knows what else - trying to find some morsel of damning evidence against them.)
Absolutely! If you refrain from publishing any type of "personal information" via the net for fear of somebody out there "not liking what they see", then they've succeeded in censoring you.
I experienced this personally, not all that long ago, when I applied for a job at a local community college. After several interviews and filling out of applications, etc. - I was verbally offered an I.T. job with them. In fact, I even received a phone call a day or two after that, where we discussed the possibility of my starting earlier than originally planned, as a "temp" worker, since they were short a few people on their staff.
I was just about to call them back to accept the temp. work before the official start date when I got another phone call, warning me that "Due to additional information that has come to light, we're now reconsidering your employment with us." The next afternoon, I had a rejection letter waiting for me in my mailbox, signed by the very person I talked to the day before.
Why? It seems they were bothered by the fact that my personal web site had a section on it detailing a fiasco I had nearly 10 years ago when my computer BBS was raided by FBI agents (only to have the feds eventually apologize for the incident and return everything to me!).
So the question then became, do I delete that portion of my web site, or do I leave it up and risk further employment hassles from paranoid hiring managers? This was a really tough decision for me, because on one hand, my BBS was a big part of my life as a teenager and into my 20's, and I *still* get people asking "What ever happened?" to the BBS. It's really nice to be able to point people to a web page rather than recite the whole story over and over. I also think it's important to preserve that part of history. Quite a few BBSs went down due to over-reactions by FBI agents in the early 1990's, and much of it has been hushed-up due to fear. (I watched the BBS Documentary Project DVD set that was put out a while ago, and it's amazing how often interviewees mentioned FBI raids and seizures of equipment.)
Since I was unemployed for close to a year by that time, though, I felt I had to swallow my pride and delete that part of my site, at least temporarily. (I have a kid to take care of, after all.) Shortly afterwards, I got a new job and now work as an I.T. manager, with better pay than the college was going to offer - so I guess "all's well that ends well". But out of the principle of the matter, I'm seriously considering re-posting the deleted pages.
Comments like "he was a great person" are ALWAYS going to be subjective. Great by what standards? Overall though, I think it's safe to say that "most people" regard Einstein as a great person. Even many of those living in Japan in WWII might not have held the atomic bomb against Einstein personally. If he hadn't agreed to work on the project, it's not like it would have just gone away. It was designed by a group of scientists, and eventually, they would have gotten a team who would come up with the same basic design with or without Einstein.
Furthermore, war is war. Even if I'm on the losing end, I don't think it makes sense to take away from the "greatness" of one among the opposing force, just because they outsmarted or overpowered me. (Many people from the Union army in our Civil War still acknowledged the "greatness" of General Robert E. Lee.)
Slashdot Mirror
I always wonder myself, why people keep AOL. But then I look at a number of my customers who still use it.... In one case, it's a gradeschool teacher who is barely computer-literate, but expected to have her own email address in this day and age. She does the vast majority of her emailing on her Treo phone that a Sprint rep. informed her about and showed her how to use - and AOL actually is supported in the "Versamail" application included with the phone. Her worst nightmare would be having to switch to something new, and explain to everyone she knows what her new email address is. Her laptop at home has its start page set to AOL, and she knows just enough to sign in on that page and get to her stuff, double-click to view photos and videos that were too big to get on her phone, and so forth.
In another case, it's an older, retired couple. AOL came with their nearly 10-year old Compaq Presario PC that they still use with Windows '98SE. That's what they started with, and so they still use it. $15 a month or whatever is a small price to pay to stick with something familiar and to keep their same email address. (They're still using dial-up too. Just can't imagine a need to pay for anything faster....)
But ultimately, yeah - AOL is living on their (now dwindling) past success. Their customer-base is, by and large, the long-time customers who resist change and are scared of learning something new.
Well... a long time ago, when I first got my hands on a Sinclair 1000 personal computer with 2K of RAM and started learning about computers and programming, I also got the "itch" to learn more about HAM radio. I can defiinitely see where the potential "crossover" is with the two interests/hobbies.
The reason *I* didn't pursue HAM radio and did pursue computers, BBSing, and later the Internet, is because I didn't need a government-issued license to use my computer!
To this day, it still keeps me away from doing anything with amateur radio. I feel like HAMs, in general, like preserving sort of an "elite" status through FCC licensing. There's something that, to me, just feels ridiculous about having to announce a long callsign with each radio communication, and having to take and pass exams before I can transmit on a radio that I paid hundreds of dollars for already.
Does it keep the overall "quality" of users higher than they'd be without it? Yes... no doubt. But I *still* like the Internet better without it imposing similar restrictions on its usage - despite the spammers and garbage web site content!
Originial poster is absolutely right! Thankfully, there is still a pretty strong/vocal minority that doesn't agree. But I was reminded of the trend just last week while listening to the radio. One of our city's most popular morning radio shows featured the DJ's bragging on the air about their lack of ability to use or understand computers. (I think it got started because the station was running an iTunes-related promotion, and these guys started in on the "What the heck IS iTunes anyway?" thing.)
They started asking people to call in if they were "as lost as they are" with computers, and took call after call from people who were proud to announce that they couldn't figure out a thing on their work or home PC.
I guess they thought this was entertaining... but to me, it just sounded pathetic. I mean, honestly, if you work in the mass media industry, shouldn't you be at least *comfortable* around computers? They've only been relying on them as digital cart machines and so forth for YEARS now....
The sudden motion the sensors were originally designed to sense was the first stage of it starting to fall off of a desk or table, onto the floor. If it took very much shock energy to trip the sensor, it would be totally useless - since it would basically be asking the hard drive to shut down after the computer already hit the floor.
Therefore, the sensors are very sensitive - registering a response to levels of shock well below what would actually harm a spinning laptop hard drive. (If your drive was fragile enough to crash because of someone lightly tapping on the top of the notebook's case, or giving a light tap to the side of the unit to switch virtual screens, it would also die whenever someone tried to move around to get moer comfortable with their laptop in their lap, or adjiust the position of the lid, or.... (you get the idea).
This stuff seems perfectly harmless to me, as long as users exercise some common sense. (Obviously - it was NEVER a good idea to whack your computer hard on the side or top!)
Despite being the systems adminstrator, I was given the official title of "Network Manager" instead.
Go figure.
Bah... This kid's happy because he was able to buy himself a pet hamster with his coaching job. Do you think those sell for upwards of $400? I think the truth is, they might be billing at rates of $25/hr. or even $65/hr. but they've only found clients willing to pay for a couple hours of time, total.
As a parent myself, I would have no problem with my kid doing something like this. Charging an hourly fee for coaching someone teaches quite a few useful skills. They learn that they have to keep a customer happy/satisfied in order to retain their business. They practice their skills in customer relations. It encourages them to try to earn money doing something they enjoy. All good things.
As for video games being "only a passtime", that depends. Sports are just a passtime for most people, yet those who are best at playing them can earn millions a year making a career out of them. If I had a kid who thought he/she was really good enough at video games to try making money from it, I sure wouldn't discourage them! They'll either "beat the odds" and succeed, or more likely, tire of it after a while or redirect their interest in a more financially useful way. (Maybe they'll get interested in software development and write games for a living?)
Without hearing your particular system, I can't really say for sure - but I've owned 2 G5 dual 2.0Ghz towers and both have exhibited what I'd call a "slight electrical whine", which varies by CPU load.
This has been discussed all over the Mac forums in the past, and for many people, doing such things as changing the speed settings from "Automatic" to the full performance mode elimiated much of it.
I don't find the noise "annoying" at all, really. I considered it a perfectly acceptable noise that my system was just going to make from time to time. If the machine had louder cooling fans in it (like most PCs I've used), I suspect it would drown the whining noise out completely.
I believe Apple also did several revisions of the G5's power supply, because early revisions were more prone to causing the system to make the whining or "chirping" noise.
The "Genius bar" at Apple stores tends to be staffed by a lot of people who *like* Macs and Apple products, but don't necessarily have loads of technical knowledge about them. It's "hit or miss", in my experience. I think it's largely because they don't pay enough for what they really want/need in terms of quality of employees. But hey - that's retail for you. (I remember here in St. Louis, MO when the quad G5 tower first came out, my friend went to the local Apple store to see one and nobody there was even aware it existed!)
Interesting concept, but I'm not quite sure that's the right way to deal with the problem.
Despite a lot of "hype" and cyberpunk novels glorifying the Internet as somehow "more than the sum of its parts" - it really boils down to being a really big wide-area network.
The "value" of the Internet can shift from "incredibly useful" to "nothing but junk" or anyplace in between, and that has to do with the quality and amount of content people choose to hang off of the ends of the network.
I think sometimes, we get too caught up in treating the "Internet" as a single entity filled with information and shared by the whole world. In reality, it's just a "grid" that allows everyone's computer equipment to interconnect (or not, as they so desire).
Rather than making this network into a "soverign nation", I think what is best is letting nations make their own decisions as to the "good" and the "bad" of interconnecting their part of the "grid" with other countries. It would be (in my opinion) unfortunate if a country like China decided they simply weren't benefiting enough from allowing traffic to and from U.S. based systems - but it'd be their leaders' option to cut themselves off from us completely if they so desired.
Indeed, this may end up happening.... Certain nations decide to break off from the "global" Internet, and only connect with specific other countries. I think, if this does happen, it will only be temporary - as they learn how much they're missing through those policies.
Yes... I saw that post right after I commented.
I'll give that a try!
Thanks!
I felt the same way. I really liked Fink (and even the FinkCommander GUI front-end for it), but it always feels like I'm getting "stale" software using it. I got to the point where I quit playing around with it for now.
I think the fact is, this sort of development in OS X is always going to be of "niche" interest only - since so many Mac users will never care about tinkering with open source software and the X environment.
Instead of multiple projects, I'd rather see everyone interested in this get behind Fink and help make one up-to-date, respectable system.
No offense taken. I appreciate the comments, actually. If I wasn't able to deal with "critics", it would have been foolish to post my financial situation in public on Slashdot.
Let me clarify a few things though.
First off, no, I don't have cable or satellite TV at all. I've been doing without for months now - after realizing how little value for my dollar I was getting with them. I don't have much time to watch movies or TV anyway. When I do, I tend to find free codes to rent a new release at a McDonalds RedBox and watch one of those.
I do have a cellphone, but recently switched providers to U.S. Cellular from Verizon, because I realized that most of my minutes during peak hours are used when people call me. By comparison, I make very few outgoing calls. U.S. Cellular's free incoming call plan makes much more sense.
I do have a 6mbit DSL high-speed Internet connection, but as far as I'm concerned, it's 110% justifiable. Sure, I don't literally *need* it, but not only is it a tax-deductible expense since I have my own on-site computer service business I do as my 2nd. job, but it's also something that saves me precious time when I find out I need a large file at the last minute. (EG. Customer wants you to go fix their all-in-one printer, and you find out they lost their driver CD. These things are often over 100MB in size to download.) My child likes playing the learning games found on sites like Nick Jr. too - and that's cheaper than buying the games at the store for her.
Large house in the suburbs? Nope! New car? Nope. I drive a 2002 I bought used after doing a lot of shopping around, and it's a pretty fuel-efficient 4 cyl. and top rated for reliability.
Also, to the person talking about cost of living and suggesting a studio apartment vs. a house, I'm just not quite "with you" that housing is a viable place to "cut corners" like that. If you have a house that's larger than you need, or in an upscale neighborhood - then sure. You can move to something more affordable. But where I live, I *might* cut my $600 a month house payment down to about $450 by renting instead of buying my house. In the process, I'd lose any ability to build equity and I'd trade off some of my privacy, plus likely lose some square footage. I'd certainly lose the fenced-in back yard my kid can play in right now.
Many financial advisors I've heard speak in the past said your home is the single best place you can put your money, in most cases. Unlike almost every other tangible asset you can purchase, a home is likely to actually appreciate in value over the time you own and use it.
I have to disagree, although I grant you it's true that *some* people are incredibly irresponsible when it comes to their finances.
... working 2 jobs and struggling like mad to keep our heads above water without stooping to government assistance and subsidized housing - but to an outsider, we appear to be fairly "middle class".
In the cases of most people I know (and even in my own case), we're in that majority of Americans who are expected to do more work for less pay - and yet, we're striving to scrape together some kind of lifestyle we aren't ashamed to have around our friends and family.
EG. I could theoretically "put away" more of each paycheck in investments, rather than spending all of it, BUT I'm just about out of corners I can cut. My current salary is thousands less per year than I was paid to do a job involving LESS responsibility, 6 or 7 years ago - and that's after a long stint of unemployment/self-employment and heavy job hunting. Meanwhile, gasoline costs roughly 3x as much as it did back then, and even little things like going out to lunch are about double the cost. (I remember around 1997 or 98, it was quite possible to buy lunch for under $4.00. I used to go to Subway and get a 6-inch cold cut trio sandwich with chips and a drink for about $3.90. To do the same today is around $6.00-$6.50 depending on the store and local taxes.) I get paid bi-weekly and the check I receive at the end of each month is completely wiped out by just my house payment, car payment, and my choice of one smaller bill such as electric, gas, or telephone. The other check is well over half gone just paying for my other utility bills and car insurance. That leaves me with maybe $300-400 for everything else, including groceries, gasoline, car repairs and maintenance, home repairs or improvement, and so on. And I don't even live in a good neighborhood or a "big house" by any means!
I have 2 credit cards, but one has only a $500 balance and the other a $250 balance. Even maxxing those out and paying their outrageous interest rates - that's not going to bury me financially. (And for the record, I have a 0 balance on the $500 limit card and try to keep it that way 90% of the time.)
It just bothers me to get "the lecture" from people about not saving for a "rainy day" -- when doing what they suggest would involve something like going without electricity for a month, or running out of food for my kid. There are a growing number of people out there just like me
I'll agree that MS hasn't given me any *huge* hassles getting products activated when I had to call in - but that doesn't make me any happier about it. It's basically an unnecessary extra step I have to go through that I shouldn't have to bother with.
I do a lot of on-site computer service, and I regularly run into situations where a PC is dead and a motherboard has to be swapped out. After that, XP always thinks it's being installed on a 2nd. machine, instead of the original one. That means I'm always stuck making that phone call and reading off the big, long key code to the voice recognition system of theirs, only to get put on hold to talk to an agent who asks for the first part of that key again and makes me answer the questions.
If you have an OEM license bundled with a PC, vs. a retail copy of XP, they ask additional questions too, such as "What brand and model of computer did this copy of Windows come with?"
Sometimes, I think the only reason they seem so generous in re-activating these licenses is because they've outsourced their call centers to other countries, and the people doing the phone support are trained in a real basic way. I doubt they even understand enough English to make their own determination of whether or not my requested use for the Windows activation is legal or not.
(EG. One time, I tried to explain that my Windows activation problem was due to experimenting with installing my copy inside Virtual PC, and I had since removed that - and just wanted to put it back on my original PC like it was supposed to be. That was met with the support person repeating the question over and over, "How many total computers have you installed Windows on?" They seemed to have no idea what I was talking about.....)
Yeah... I never realized they had just one person doing all of those logos! I guess I just assumed it was a tradition carried on by different folks in the design team. It's a nice touch, especially since their site is pretty basic and uncluttered. It allows the art to really stand out.
It all depends on what you're after, I think. Personally, I almost *never* seriously consider buying "bleeding edge" hardware - because doing so automatically means paying a big price premium, as an "early adopter" helping recoup R&D costs, plus a good chance of unreliability. How often are device drivers well-optimized for the "new, latest and greatest" thing? How many times does "bleeding edge" quickly turn into "first attempt at something that was totally redesigned before really catching on"?
The latest rumors circulating about the new Pro Macs all point to Apple including slots for 2 optical drives again, instead of just 1 like current G5 towers have. That would help a lot in terms of "expandability". Otherwise, I think all G5 towers have been very expandable. What limitations are you running into with them? Arguably, they should have included more hard drive bays - but for as little as $45 or so, you can buy 3rd. party solutions that let you add several more internal drives using custom brackets. They've been pretty generous with RAM slots, and I know *nobody* who actually filled all the PCI-X or PCI-e slots in one?? Bluetooth? Wireless? Both possible to order as options that don't take up any slots or ports. Optical audio output? Included.
Huh? I think *you* must be a bit naive if you think "middle management" is responsible for everything from developing packaging for products to sales to payroll and benefits!
You have accounting staff, a maintenance department, a human resources department, a sales department, and possibly a marketing or advertising department for such things.
The people being cut in this Intel move are going to basically be your "project managers", who do little but act as mouthpieces or "conduits" between a small group and another manager above them who expects/wants to deal with only 1 person when giving orders or requesting feedback on a particular project.
IMHO, that's really just a "luxury" for larger companies. If it's time to cut costs, that's the best place to start. Smaller businesses can't afford to do such things, so one manager is typically expected to listen to and work with a group him/herself, and consolidate their individual statements into one "summarized" version to give to the business owner(s) when needed.
I've started paying much more attention to these topics in recent years, since I have a kid of my own who is about to start preschool.
What I've observed here in St. Louis, Missouri, anyway, is that our public schools run the gamut from excellent to horrible, depending on where you happen to live. Our schools in the city itself are largely in the "poor to horrible" category. In the "inner hub" counties closest to the city, they're only 1 step better in most cases. As you move further west of the city, into the more affluent counties, the public schools generally improve.
Unfortunately, the kids at the highest risk of getting a substandard education are often the same ones with parents who simply can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids. So what you typically see are kids of well-to-do upper middle-class parents being homeschooled because their parents just believe they "know better" how to teach their kid(s) than the school districts do, or because they're a little overprotective.
My thinking is, by homeschooling, you're *already* denying your kid(s) a lot of opportunity to build social skills. If they're using a virtual school on the computer while they're at home, vs. only interacting with the same parent(s) they always interact with anyway, how much difference does that really make? What's important is that homeschoolers get their kids involved in extracurricular activities so they're getting to interact with their peers in other settings.
No ... that could very well also be a "politically correct" way of saying, "I'm well aware that some of our management are worthless sponges, sucking up a paycheck while adding zero value to the company. I plan on kicking these people out as soon as I can, while looking at the rest of the bunch to see who else needs to stay, and who needs to go."
It's refreshing to see a bunch of middle management given the boot, rather than the much more common scenario of cutting jobs of the technical people "in the trenches".
I've always felt that especially in fields like engineering and computer support or application development, you can get by with very minimal management if you make it a point to try to hire people who are comfortable/capable working with little direction.
Most people I've known who were good in the area of computing and I.T. (not to mention engineering types) spent a lot of time teaching themselves and experimenting via trial and error. (If you got interested in computers back in the 1980's, there really were no classes to take or certification exams to pass. You *had* to pick up whatever book(s) were bundled with your computer, learn how to program it yourself, and master the thing.) These aren't people especially "compatible" with multiple layers of management and micro-management.
Sure.... but they also leave few real alternatives. So far, the most useful "boot from alternate OS to virus scan/clean" solutions are illegal, pirated boot CDs like "Hiren's" that make the rounds on the net.
You could shell out the ridiculous price of $400+ for a copy of AVAST's B.A.R.T. CD, I suppose - but then you're stuck with their inferior virus scanning/removal technology. I've generally fared better running the latest AVG on a compromised system's own OS than relying on AVAST to get it clean running from the stripped-down XP that boots from a B.A.R.T. CD.
Personally, I find it amazing that Symantec, of all people, hasn't re-used the "boot from virtual partition into PC-DOS" solution they've already integrated into Ghost Corporate as a way for their AV software to run full scans and cleans?
I was shocked to see Yahoo very recently releasing a new OS X beta verison of their IM client! Until about 2 weeks ago, all they had for Mac users was that horrible, 3 year old client full of bugs and growing incompatibility with their own network!
It makes me wonder if that's tied in to this whole MSN/Yahoo intercompatibility thing - because MSN *does* have a very nice, current Mac OS X client.
I can relate to the original poster to a large extent, although I occasionally feel like I've been bitten by the "new technology" bug and develop this fixation on buying a specific new piece of electronics or computer gear. But only very sporadically compared to when I was younger, and just longed for almost every new gadget that was announced.
My initial reaction was just like yours. It's called "maturity" or "growing up"! But I'm thinking about it right now, and realizing that's not a full answer (at least for me).
Part of it was simply that I had more free time and disposable income, coupled with wanting to have something "new and cool" to show off to friends. But I do think "burn out" plays a role too.
Especially with strictly "entertainment related" items (anything from new music to DVD movies to computer games), I'm starting to feel jaded. I think "Ehh... there's a lot of hype about this new release, but it sounds too much like something I've seen before. I'll skip it." I think I'm just getting old enough to start observing rehashes of many things I enjoyed when I was younger, and seeing how the generation younger than me never experienced the older or original versions before, so they're buying them up and enjoying them like they're brand new concepts.
Yes, I considered bringing the incident up in the interview, except I was aware that one of the interviewers knew me from years ago, and knew about my BBS. (In fact, I mentioned on my resume that coding and running my own BBS was among my interests outside of work.) I was under the impression that had he thought this could have been a problem, he would never have let me get past the first interview, or even the initial application I submitted online.
I couldn't really envision it being much of a "positive" to discuss the FBI raiding one's home and confiscating all of their computer equipment (apparently by mistake, due to receiving false information and tips). At best, it's an entertaining story that has no real bearing on one's ability to perform a job. At worst, it scares people and casts doubt on one's ability to be trusted with corporate information.
Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised they even dug deep enough to find this info. My personal web site didn't exactly have this story in bold type off the main page or anything. You had to go down several layers of menus to find it, buried under a whole list of info I wrote about various interests of mine. (If I were a recruiter, I don't think I would slog through applicants' personal web pages, reading about their pets, favorite cars, favorite bands and rock concerts attended in the past, and who knows what else - trying to find some morsel of damning evidence against them.)
Absolutely! If you refrain from publishing any type of "personal information" via the net for fear of somebody out there "not liking what they see", then they've succeeded in censoring you.
I experienced this personally, not all that long ago, when I applied for a job at a local community college. After several interviews and filling out of applications, etc. - I was verbally offered an I.T. job with them. In fact, I even received a phone call a day or two after that, where we discussed the possibility of my starting earlier than originally planned, as a "temp" worker, since they were short a few people on their staff.
I was just about to call them back to accept the temp. work before the official start date when I got another phone call, warning me that "Due to additional information that has come to light, we're now reconsidering your employment with us." The next afternoon, I had a rejection letter waiting for me in my mailbox, signed by the very person I talked to the day before.
Why? It seems they were bothered by the fact that my personal web site had a section on it detailing a fiasco I had nearly 10 years ago when my computer BBS was raided by FBI agents (only to have the feds eventually apologize for the incident and return everything to me!).
So the question then became, do I delete that portion of my web site, or do I leave it up and risk further employment hassles from paranoid hiring managers? This was a really tough decision for me, because on one hand, my BBS was a big part of my life as a teenager and into my 20's, and I *still* get people asking "What ever happened?" to the BBS. It's really nice to be able to point people to a web page rather than recite the whole story over and over. I also think it's important to preserve that part of history. Quite a few BBSs went down due to over-reactions by FBI agents in the early 1990's, and much of it has been hushed-up due to fear. (I watched the BBS Documentary Project DVD set that was put out a while ago, and it's amazing how often interviewees mentioned FBI raids and seizures of equipment.)
Since I was unemployed for close to a year by that time, though, I felt I had to swallow my pride and delete that part of my site, at least temporarily. (I have a kid to take care of, after all.) Shortly afterwards, I got a new job and now work as an I.T. manager, with better pay than the college was going to offer - so I guess "all's well that ends well". But out of the principle of the matter, I'm seriously considering re-posting the deleted pages.
Comments like "he was a great person" are ALWAYS going to be subjective. Great by what standards? Overall though, I think it's safe to say that "most people" regard Einstein as a great person.
Even many of those living in Japan in WWII might not have held the atomic bomb against Einstein personally. If he hadn't agreed to work on the project, it's not like it would have just gone away. It was designed by a group of scientists, and eventually, they would have gotten a team who would come up with the same basic design with or without Einstein.
Furthermore, war is war. Even if I'm on the losing end, I don't think it makes sense to take away from the "greatness" of one among the opposing force, just because they outsmarted or overpowered me. (Many people from the Union army in our Civil War still acknowledged the "greatness" of General Robert E. Lee.)